User Reviews

'The Pointing Finger' is based on "the famous novel" by the modestly named 'Rita'. (Eliza Margaret Humphries to her friends) and probably is more coherent than this 1933 film version. At the end one was thinking, 'yes, but' and 'does that mean?' and 'what was that about?' and so forth. For example the Edensore family is haunted by a pointing abbot in a habit who frightens the male members of the family to death but at the end it transpires the habit is a real one so who has been wearing the habit in the past hauntings. The secret passed on from one heir to the next is the location of the habit so do the young heirs frighten the old ones to gain their inheritance? One of the characters says the above line about the other side of a tapestry but that indeed is where the habit is stored so does she know about it all or was that a chance remark? I'm thinking too much about this...

It is a slow moving film set mostly in one house with not much excitement despite the convoluted plot. The acting is very much of its time. Michael Hogan as the ambiguous Patrick Lafone (you know he's Irish because he says 'bejabers') is the most interesting character.

From Alpha comes "The Pointing Finger" (1933) which, despite its long introductory sequence in which the role of the Pointing Finger in the family curse is explained at great length, is not a horror film at all. For soon after the introductory scenes (which have bored us stiff while we imbibe all the instant information), the story changes tack completely. In fact, the movie hardly qualifies as a thriller. It's actually one of those look-a-like yarns which used to be very popular with egotistical actors (it gives them the opportunity to play TWO roles) and Poverty Row producers (two actors for the price of one). Alas, the dull John Stuart plays the dual roles with only middling success for almost all his scenes are stolen by either Michael Hogan (rather ingratiating as a Clayton's villain – i.e. the villain you have when you're not having a villain) or the lovely Viola Keats. True, there's a bit of life in the climax, which even the plodding direction by George Pearson can't quite eliminate, but I doubt if most people will still be watching at this point.

I tend to agree with the more positive comments under the video online. The story has a few suspenseful moments and several twists. Why does the heir come back not knowing anything about the curse but knowing about a certain poem? What part do the low life criminals play? What part does the greedy potential heir play? What part does Africa play? What will happen with the "pal" who welcomed home her very different friend?

This is a British production. We have friendly and "rebellious" South African natives and an admiration for Cecil Rhodes. We have a bad Irishman who turned out to be a good Irishman under the influence of a friendship with an English gentleman. (Some hope in that for the Republic of Ireland getting along with the UK--acting like a gentleman is more important than ethnicity?) We have an Englishman born in South Africa with an English accent who is a part of some sort of militia to put down uprisings against their rule. We have an Englishman born in England with the same accent who appears to want to simply hang out in Africa indefinitely, I suppose living off his father's money, the idle rich. One might suggest that the movie promotes the British colonization of South Africa. One might also suggest the movie promotes the idea that if you are born to wealth you should be doing something constructive with your life, not avoiding your responsibility.

This reminds me of the Poirot story with the South African mystery. Apparently in South Africa secrets could abound because it was so far from Britain. Unhappily for some of the characters, what happened in South Africa didn't stay in South Africa.

Originally written by Rita in 1907, this early talkie version seems to be set in the present day and remind me of the Wendell Wilkie novel "The Woman in White" which has been filmed various times and made into a musical. Once again, it's about a huge British estate that someone wants to fraudulently take over, using subterfuge to do so. There's some sort of weird family legend that is almost like a curse, and the subtle use of blackmail brings out other odd twists as well.

John Stuart is the legitimate heir to the fortune which his no good cousin Leslie Perrins wants to claim, hiring the working class Michael Hogan to accimpany Stuart to Africa and take care of him. A lookalike shows up and takes his place, leading to more conspiring between Perrins and Hogan, as well as the return (possibly) for the real heir, and the question becomes who's the fraud, why is there a lookalike, and what the curse is.

Surprisingly this is a convoluted story that works and kept me intrigued in spite of all its indiscrepancies. I might have liked this more had it been expanded and told in a more linear fashion, or perhaps that would have taken away the mystery. Viola Keats, as Lady Mary, is feisty and sweet, strong in spite of all the malevolence surrounding her.

Pretty intriguing and well done for a British quota quickie, definitely a step above the very melodramatic Tod Slaughter variation of Wilkie's novel, especially since Slaughter would have been a perfect replacement for Perrins even if he did chew the scenery to bits. The ending does drag a bit with a lengthy silent scene that dragged the film down.